On 12 apr 2009, at 01:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> "The RSAG is chartered by the IAB."
>> Not if it advises the RSE. If it advises the RSE, the RSAG has to be
> chartered by the RSE. If I was the RSE (which I faithfully promise
> will never happen), I would not accept the existence of an advisory
> group which I didn't charter and which didn't report to me.
[on personal title]
I think you touch upon the kernel of the proposal. Let me try to
explain why I think the committee is an IAB chartered activity.
In my view, the reason why we started to work on the committee is to
provide a body that is the carrier of the "RFC Series Flame" and while
the IAB has the responsibility of oversight the point was made that
the IAB members are currently not selected for RFC/Editorial expertise
and that the IAB does not have the cycles to consult the RSE in times
of crises. Another important goal was to gain long term consistency,
a consistency that spans the RSE contract cycles and therefore may
also outlive the individual RSEs.
With this committee the IAB offloads some of its responsibilities
while maintaining the oversight.
The committee would advice all concerned parties involved on issues
regarding the RFC Series.
However the committee does not have any decisive power. In case of
conflict between the RSE and a third party. I would foresee a decision
by the RSE being reviewed (non-binding) by the committee, and
appealable to the IAB.
It could indeed be that the RSE does not accept the advice and
guidance from the Committee. If that happens it is because the RSE
doesn't need the advice because (s)he is doing an excellent job
independently, or because (s)he happens to _need_ the advice but is to
stubborn to accept it. The IAB in its oversight role would be able to
distinguish between the two, specifically when the committee is
chartered by the IAB and would then be able to execute its oversight
role.
Since we are suggesting names, as a non native speaker I am not sure
if "Council" would cover the kind of behavior we are expecting from
this body: "RFC Editor Council", or REC if we want a TLA [RFC5513].
--Olaf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20090413/61837367/PGP.bin